“The Woman’s Right to Know” Act: The Atwood Principle and Abortion Law in Alabama 

The Atwood Principle

“An unborn child is still a child and should be protected at all cost.” – Bob Riley, Governor of Alabama.

“Abortion is murder, and Roe v. Wade is an abominable decision. I support the right to life of every unborn child.” – Bill Pryor, Attorney General of Alabama, 1997-2004.

In The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood describes a terrifying futuristic world of women’s oppression in which powerful men gain absolute control over women’s lives, largely though control of their sexuality and reproductive choices. We use the phrase “The Atwood Principle” to describe similar trends in the 21st century, where conservative legislators and anti-abortion activists fight to restrict women’s rights through control of their reproductive freedom. Unlike in Atwood’s book, both men and women are working to restrict women’s right to choose. This trend is evident in the National Women’s Coalition for Life and in magazines and websites, such as Rightgrrl, whose contributors are all women. One of the conservatives’ main tactics has been to argue for fetal rights, placing these rights above the rights of the women who bear them. They do this by shifting the language and laws around fetuses from that of a biological organism to that of a “person” and an “innocent victim” in urgent need of protection.

“The Woman’s Right to Know Act”

Alabama’s “The Woman’s Right to Know Act” (hereafter “the Act”) is a recent example of ongoing threats to women’s sexual and reproductive freedoms. The Act came into effect in October, 2002, and already we can see its impact upon access to abortion and provider procedure options in the state.

The Act has two key elements that limit women’s reproductive freedom. The first element is an informational counseling requirement; the second is a 24-hour waiting period, allegedly maintaining women’s rights to “informed consent.” The authors of the Act use patients’ rights language about informed consent to conceal the underlying purpose of the legislation. This Act creates a barrier to abortion, and encourages women to seek other alternatives such as adoption.

One of these drastic changes is that women literally bear the costs of the expensive state-mandated additions to the procedure, placing an additional burden on poor women. At one clinic, 2003 prices ranged from $350.00 to $900.00 depending upon such factors as the age of the embryo or fetus.

Prior to the Act, a woman could obtain an abortion in a single visit. The process now requires at least two visits—one for counseling and testing, and the other for the procedure. Twenty-four hours must elapse between the two appointments. If a woman seeks an abortion from a designated provider, she may collect the informational materials from the clinic before the appointment or receive certified materials in the mail.

In addition to the expenses and an enforced waiting period, counseling sessions are centered on the fetal rights and emotional and physical harm to the woman. Take the example of a typical client we will call Brenda. At her first appointment, Brenda will undergo laboratory tests to determine the age of the embryo or fetus. A doctor must perform an ultrasound. Brenda’s decision to view the ultrasound is optional, but the doctor is legally obliged to tell her that she can view the results, and she must sign a consent form to acknowledge that she was given this option. The doctor will tell Brenda that her fetus may be viable at 19 weeks and will counsel her about the viability of the fetus, the risks of abortion, and the father’s responsibilities.

The Act requires that these counseling sessions be focused on the development of the “unborn child,” which is set against a backdrop of medical and psychological risks for the pregnant woman. Counselors or physicians must mention all of the following potential complications: allergic reactions, infection, perforation, hemorrhage, permanent injury, and death. If Brenda still wishes to abort, the doctor will perform the procedure after a minimum of 24 hours.

The Woman’s Right to Know What?

The authors of the Act claim to want women to have “full knowledge of the nature and consequences of abortion.” In effect, the Act encodes strong antiabortion sentiment into law. For example, Brenda learns that the State of Alabama “strongly urges” her to contact an adoption agency who can offer social and financial services, and she receives a list of contacts for this purpose. Brenda also learns that she has a legal right to obtain financial support from the father, and that the state can enforce this right. She is told that she has the right to refuse to abort, and that no one (including her family or sexual partner) can compel her to end the pregnancy. She also has the right to sue the doctor who aborts the fetus if he or she does so without obtaining her written consent.

In addition, Brenda learns that the fetus has rights of its own. For example, the fetus must be resuscitated if it is “born alive,” that is, if it shows any signs of viability. The 24-hour waiting period requires her to deliberate on these matters before proceeding with the abortion. Some local providers believe that the Act has already had a dampening effect on reproductive decision-making. Records at the West Alabama Women’s Center showed 20-30 percent fewer appointments for medical (Mifepristone or RU-486) or surgical abortion since the Act took effect.

The Burdens of Knowledge

The Act’s use of the language of “knowledge” and “rights” distorts the actual messages that women receive as they move through the abortion process. Throughout this process, Brenda is actually being asked: “Do you understand the consequences of what you’re doing?” and “How can we make it harder for you?” The emphasis on “knowledge” and “rights” in the Act only serves to mask these messages. The Act is designed to evoke Brenda’s so-called maternal instincts (i.e. parental responsibilities) as well as her fears of injury or death. The informational materials highlight threats to her health including infertility. The state inserts itself into Brenda’s decision-making through last minute pressure tactics with the purpose of bringing about a change of heart. The Act forces women to reconsider their decision through the 24-hour waiting period. Its effectiveness in terms of “cooling off” is apparent in the large number of women who fail to return for the procedure.

The 24-hour waiting period is a special burden for rural women and for the large majority of women who lack an abortion provider in their home town or county. Alabama ranks near the bottom of the nation in terms of county availability; 93 percent of counties have no abortion provider. It is also a burden for women who seek anonymity by obtaining an abortion far from home, including those in Mississippi who cross state lines. This burden is financial as well as emotional; in order to comply with the Act, most women must pay for overnight accommodations as well as gas, meals, child care, and the abortion package itself which is not covered by Medicaid. In a low-income state such as Alabama, these costs act as a considerable barrier to women’s ability to obtain a safe and legal abortion.

Rights and the Conservative Right

“The Woman’s Right to Know Act” is a thinly-veiled attempt to stop abortions. Alabama is not alone in this attempt: The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) reports that laws similar to the Act already have taken effect in 26 states. This legislation places heavy financial and emotional burdens on women. Finding a provider is proving more difficult everywhere, as the moral climate, physical dangers, and lack of training take a toll on doctors’ ability to perform abortions. These barriers go hand-in-hand with national legislative restrictions on abortions and an energized Pro-Life movement that frames abortion as murder.

The Atwood Principle is alive and well in the 21st century through this multi-faceted assault on women’s reproductive rights by powerful conservatives. The assault not only includes anti-abortion legislation, but also restrictions on birth control, sex education, and control over pregnancy outcomes by prosecuting pregnant women for drug use and other “crimes” against the fetus. The difference between Atwood’s portrayal of men’s absolute control over women’s reproduction and the reality in modern America is that both men and women support, promote, and sign such legislative efforts. Women are, in effect, being seduced with pro-feminist terminology about their “rights” as knowledgeable consumers, or by the “rightness” of arguments that place the fetus at center stage of human rights protections.

* Bronwen Lichtenstein, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at The University of Alabama. She has volunteered as an escort at a women’s health clinic in Alabama for the past two years. Amanda Crabb is a Women’s Studies graduate student at the University of Alabama. In 2004, she won an award for a research paper on abortion in Alabama.